The holidays are saved! Charlie Brown specials will air on PBS after all
CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS IS SAVED BY PBS
The Peanuts holiday specials will air on PBS and PBS Kids this year, in addition to Apple TV+.
It’s a Christmas miracle, Charlie Brown! The lovable loser, the Peanuts gang and their iconic holiday specials will be back — albeit briefly — on broadcast television this year after all.
In a welcome reversal, Apple TV+ has struck a deal with PBS to air “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” and “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The beloved 1960s specials will air ad-free on PBS and PBS Kids on Nov. 22 and Dec. 13, respectively, at 7:30 p.m. local time, reps for Apple TV+ said Wednesday.
The programs had previously migrated from network television and exclusively to the streaming platform, destroying quite a few holiday traditions and annual telecasts along the way. Sounds like someone took the lesson of overwhelming materialism from the Christmas special to heart.
As previously announced, the classic animated specials will be available on demand on Apple TV+, where “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” began streaming on Wednesday. The special will be available for free on the platform from Nov. 25 through Nov. 27.
“A Charlie Brown Christmas,” the 1965 special, will begin streaming on Apple TV+ on Dec. 4. It will be available for free from Dec. 11 through Dec. 13.
Disappointment abounded in October when Apple TV+ said that the comic strip-inspired films would stream exclusively on the platform rather than on ABC and other networks this year.
The arrangement was part of Apple TV+’s team-up with Wildbrain, Peanuts Worldwide and Lee Mendelson Film Productions. The deal made the streaming service the exclusive home for classic Peanuts content, as well as new original series and specials based on Charles M. Schulz’s cartoon characters, several of which have been renewed.
DAWG SAYS: CHECK YOUR GUIDES BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME REPEATS AND OTHER SPECIALS AVAILABLE.
Does An Executive Order Makes Oregon ‘Freeze’ Enforceable by Law
OREGON GOVERNOR ORDERS A FREEZE
Jail time and hefty fines could be the penalty for violators of Democrat Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s two-week “freeze” limiting the size of social gatherings to six people and more. Those who fail to comply with the new rules could face fines up to $1,250 or spend up to a month behind bars, The Oregonian reported.
On Friday, Gov. Brown released the order requiring bars and restaurants to return to takeout only and indoor facilities like gyms, museums, and skating rinks to completely close until the order will supposedly be lifted after December 2, The Oregonian reported. The new orders are some of the most stringent in the state since a stay-at-home order in March.
Included in the “freeze” is a rule that indoor and outdoor gatherings must be limited to six people from two separate households. Grocery stores and pharmacies are also required to limit capacities. Houses of worship are allowed indoor crowds of no more than 25 people. Those traveling are required to quarantine for two weeks upon arrival in the state.
Brown also said the “freeze” could be extended in specific counties, adding that the freeze in Portland is currently established for four weeks.
Brown cited the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for the strict orders. According to Reuters, the infection fatality rate of the coronavirus is down 30 percent since April, with 0.6 percent of those infected passing away, compared to 0.9 percent early on in the pandemic.
ANOTHER GOVERNOR BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE
“For the last eight months, I have been asking Oregonians to follow the letter and the spirit of the law and we have not chosen to engage law enforcement. At this point in time, unfortunately, we have no other option,” the governor said last weekend. “We are trying to stop this ferocious virus from spreading even more quickly and far wide, and to save lives.”
The majority of the freeze won’t take effect until Wednesday, but the governor said social gathering limits begin immediately.
Brown said she would limit her own Thanksgiving to four people, adding, “I know it doesn’t look like the Thanksgiving holiday we’ve all been planning for weeks, and I know it’s really, really hard, but unfortunately it’s a necessity right now.”
According to a spokesperson for the governor, the Oregon State Police “will be working with local law enforcement to enforce the Governor’s orders, in the same way local law enforcement officers respond to noise complaints for loud parties, for example, and issue citations.”
“I will take a stronger legal action as appropriate,” Brown said. “I’ve already directed the superintendent of state police to begin to work with local law enforcement to legally enforce the informal social gathering orders.”
Oregon’s population is 4.2 million people. The New York Times reported that as of November 16, of the 56,880 cases, 762 deaths have occurred in association with COVID-19.
DAWG SAYS: LET’S NOT USE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DO ACTUAL COP SHIT LETS USE THEM TO DICTATE THE GOVERNORS CONTROL ISSUES.
AND I THOUGHT THEY WERE TRYING TO RELEASE PEOPLE FROM THE JAILS.
AND DOES SHE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SUCH THINGS?
Texas attorney general under investigation by FBI: report
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is under investigation by the FBI over allegations of bribery and abuse of office in an effort to help a real estate developer and wealthy donor, two unidentified sources told The Associated Press.
Multiple former members of Paxton’s staff have accused him of using his office to benefit Nate Paul, the AP notes. Four former staff members filed a whistleblower suit against Paxton, saying they reported the state official because he hired an outside lawyer to investigate Paul’s allegations that the FBI improperly raided his home and offices last year.
Since reporting Paxton, each of those staff members have either been fired, resigned or placed on leave. The whistleblowers who filed the suit last week said they were subject to retaliation by Paxton.
Paxton, however, told the Austin American-Statesman on Tuesday that “after reviewing the claims made by former employees of this office, their allegations are overblown, based upon assumptions, and to a large degree misrepresent the facts.”
It’s unclear how far the FBI’s investigation has progressed, according to the AP. A spokesperson for the bureau declined to comment to the news service.
Philip Hidler, a criminal defense attorney for Paxton, also declined to comment to the AP. The Hill has reached out to Paxton’s office for comment.
The full extent of Paxton’s connection with Paul is still unclear, the AP notes. Paul reportedly donated $25,000 to Paxton’s reelection campaign in 2018 and recently said in a deposition that Paxton recommended a woman to work for him.
Two anonymous sources previously told the AP that Paxton admitted to having an affair with the woman. Paxton’s office reportedly did not respond to a request for comment at the time that claim was made.
The online colossus opened an online pharmacy Tuesday that allows customers to order medication or prescription refills, and have them delivered to their front door in a couple of days.
The potential impact of Amazon’s arrival in the pharmaceutical space rippled through that sector immediately. The stocks of CVS Health Corp., Walgreens and Rite Aid all tumbled Tuesday.
The big chains rely on their pharmacies for a steady flow of shoppers who may also grab a snack or shampoo or groceries on the way out. All have upped online services and touted their abilities to deliver prescriptions and other goods as the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed more consumers to stay home. But Amazon.com has mastered these things, and its online store is infinitely larger, with millions of loyal shoppers already buying books, TVs and just about anything else.
“The news represents a disruption to the system and competitive threat that will likely shift scripts away from the retail channel,” analysts at Citi Research said in a note.
SOME CONCERNS ABOUT AMAZON
Amazon has a history of disruption. Launched in 1995 as an online book store, it pushed other booksellers to sell online. But those that couldn’t keep up went out of business, like the Borders bookstore chain, which disappeared in 2011.
Its purchase of Whole Foods three years ago sent supermarket stocks spiraling, but many have been able to hold their own against Amazon, offering home delivery and curbside pickup of groceries.
Amazon has also become a threat to shipping companies, delivering more than half of its own packages itself. Vans stamped with the Amazon logo have become as common a sight as the UPS truck.
The company said its online pharmacy will offer commonly prescribed medications in the U.S., including creams, pills, as well as medications that need to stay refrigerated, like insulin. Shoppers have to set up a profile on Amazon’s website and have their doctors send prescriptions there. It won’t ship medications that have a high risk of being abused, like some opioids.
Most insurance is accepted, Amazon said. But Prime members who don’t have insurance can also buy generic or brand name drugs from Amazon for a discount. They can also get discounts at 50,000 physical pharmacies around the country at Costco, CVS, Walgreens, Walmart and other stores.
THERE COULD BE HELP FOR UNINSURED OR HIGH DEDUCTIBLE
That could be appealing to the uninsured or people who have plans that make them pay a high deductible first before their coverage starts, said John Boylan, an analyst who covers Walgreens for Edward Jones.
He said Amazon’s move will mostly affect smaller drugstores that don’t have either the retail giant’s purchasing power or deals that major drugstore chains have with insurers to funnel patients to their stores for prescriptions.
Amazon has eyed the health care industry for some time. Two years ago, it spent $750 million to buy online pharmacy PillPack, which organizes medication in packets by what time and day they need to be taken. Amazon said that PillPack will continue, focusing on shipping medication to people with chronic conditions.
The Wayne County Board of Canvassers failed to certify the election results in Michigan’s largest county Thursday after the four-member panel deadlocked at 2-2 along partisan lines.
The decision, which was made amid a flood of Republican lawsuits in the Wolverine State, came after some absentee ballot poll books in Detroit, which is located in Wayne County, were found to be out of balance. A similar mismatch in the August primaries and general election in 2016 did not prevent the body from certifying those results.
Both of the GOP members of the panel voted to not certify the results, while the Democratic members voted to certify.
The deadlock will likely kick the responsibility of certifying the county’s results to the secretary of State’s office and Board of State Canvassers, which will then have 10 days to canvas and certify the results.
The failure to certify is a public relations win – albeit likely a temporary one – for Republicans led by President Trump, who has waged a campaign to malign the election results in Michigan and other battlegrounds over baseless allegations of voter fraud.
AT LEAST 4 LAWSUITS FILED
Republicans have filed at least four lawsuits in Wayne County alone in an attempt to stop the count there, leaning on allegations of irregularities and that GOP poll watchers were unable to effectively monitor ballot-counting. Democrats have rebutted the claims, maintaining that the election was run smoothly and that any irregularities would not be sufficient to overturn nearly 150,000-vote lead in the state.
Wayne County is also heavily Democratic, and votes there are widely expected to favor President-elect Joe Biden upon official certification.
The GOP hailed the county panel’s decision to deadlock, claiming it backs up their spurious claims of “widespread” fraud and irregularities in vote-counting.
“I am proud that, due to the efforts of the Michigan Republican Party, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign, enough evidence of irregularities and potential voter fraud was uncovered resulting in the Wayne County Board of Canvassers refusing to certify their election results,” said Michigan GOP Chair Laura Cox. “This action will allow more time for us to get to the bottom of these deeply troubling irregularities.”
Democrats, in turn, slammed the Republican members of the county board, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D), who represents the area, saying they “put politics above their duty to our residents.”
BIDEN HAD A LARGE LEAD
“In refusing to approve the results of the election in Wayne County, the two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers have placed partisan politics above their legal duty to certify the election results. The people have spoken: Joe Biden won Michigan by more than 140,000 votes. Today’s action is a blatant attempt to undermine the will of the voters. The process, however, will move forward. Under Michigan law, the Board of State of Canvassers will now finish the job and I have every expectation they will certify the results when the job is done,” added Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D).
Republican celebrations may be short-lived, with Michigan Secretary of State (D) Jocelyn Benson declaring state authorities would take the reins and work to certify Wayne County’s results.
“Should the current decision of the Board of Wayne County Canvassers hold through the adjournment of today’s meeting, the Board of State Canvassers will be responsible for certifying the Wayne County election. In similar circumstances in the past, state canvassers have appointed the Bureau of Elections to carry out the processes of canvassing the vote and voter totals,” said Benson.
“The Bureau stands ready to fulfill this duty and we expect this will address clerical errors and improve the quality of the canvass overall. It is common for some precincts in Michigan and across the country to be out of balance by a small number of votes, especially when turnout is high. Importantly, this is not an indication that any votes were improperly cast or counted.”
UPDATE: THE VOTES HAVE NOW BEEN CERTIFIED AFTER A “COMPROMISE WITH DEMOCRATS.” I DO NOT KNOW HOW THERE IS A “COMPROMISE” ON THE VOTE, EITHER THEY ARE CERTIFIED OR THEY ARE NOT.